If you’re considering an inquest into the death of someone close to you, or have read about the process, then you’ll know there’s a considerable amount of legal jargon that comes out of any proceedings.
Here we give you the top terms you might need to know, to help you when you’re involved in an inquest:
- Article II inquest
- Balance of probabilities
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- Coroner’s officer
- Exceptional Case Funding
- Interested Person (IP)
- “Jamieson Inquest”
- Legal Help
- Means Test
- Merits Test
- “Middleton Inquest”
- Narrative conclusion
- Open conclusion
- Pre-inquest Review (PIR)
- Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report
- Read (Rule 23)
- Short-form conclusion
Article II inquest
This refers to Article II of the European Convention on Human Rights (commonly known as the ‘right to life’). If someone has died whilst under the care of the state – for example, in prison, police custody, or whilst sectioned under the Mental Health Act – or by agents of the state such as a police shooting or restraint then Article II will be engaged. This is because the State has a duty to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of people who are in its care.
In these inquests the coroner will not just look at ‘how’ the deceased died but also ‘by what means and in what circumstances’. This allows the coroner to look deeper at the context and background of the death than in a non-Article II inquest.
Balance of probabilities
When the coroner or jury is reaching a conclusion at an inquest or deciding what bits of evidence are true during the inquest, then they must come to these decisions ‘on the balance of probabilities’. This means they have to say that it is ‘more likely than not’ that an event occurred or that someone has died in a particular way.
The only conclusion for which this is different is the conclusion of ‘unlawful killing’. In order to reach this conclusion the coroner or jury must be sure ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
A lawyer, who is also known as Counsel, who can represent you at an inquest and ask questions on your behalf.
Beyond reasonable doubt
When the coroner or jury is reaching a conclusion at an inquest of ‘unlawful killing’ then they can only reach this decision if they are sure ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. This means that they are sure that based on the facts of the case, there is no other logical version of events.
A witness who must attend the inquest and give evidence in person.
Previously known as a verdict, this is the formal outcome of the Inquest. Examples of conclusions include natural causes, accidental death and suicide.
An official who holds the inquest, similar to a judge in court. They also order the post-mortem examination.
Helps the coroner with the inquest process, such as corresponding with Interested Persons and managing the disclosure of information.
Exceptional Case Funding
A type of legal aid funding that helps cover the cost of representation by a solicitor and/or barrister at an inquest.
A judicial inquiry held when there has been a sudden, unexplained, violent or unnatural death. The purpose is to determine how, where and when the death occurred.
Interested Person (IP)
Individuals and bodies with the right to ask questions at an inquest; as defined in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Family members i.e. parents and partners of the person who has died are automatically IPs but the definition can also include a hospital, care home, Council, trade union, police force and many other bodies, dependent upon the circumstances.
Sometimes an inquest will be referred to as a “Jamieson Inquest”. This simply means that Article II is not engaged in this inquest. This means the coroner will deal strictly with the four questions he or she has to answer: who the deceased was, where they died, when they died and how they died. In these inquests, the coroner will not look at the wider circumstances surrounding someone’s death.
Legal aid funding that covers the cost of advice and assistance from a solicitor to help prepare for an inquest.
The review of the applicant’s financial resources undertaken by the Legal Aid Agency when deciding whether to grant funding.
The review of the applicant’s case undertaken by the Legal Aid Agency when deciding whether to grant funding. The Legal Aid Agency will consider whether there is a risk of a breach of the Article 2 ‘right to life’ if funding is not granted. They will also look at whether there is a wider public interest in relation to the inquest, i.e. whether representation at the inquest would produce a significant benefit for a wider class of people other than the applicant and their family.
A “Middleton Inquest” is another name for an Article II inquest which you can read about above.
Conclusions (previously verdicts) are the formal outcome of an inquest. A narrative conclusion is used where one of the ‘short form’ or single-word conclusions, such as suicide or natural causes, are not sufficient to explain how someone came to their death.
This will mean that the coroner (sometimes delegated to the jury) will outline their conclusion in one or two sentences. Occasionally a questionnaire is produced for the jury to answer.
No conclusion can be reached based on the evidence presented.
A detailed examination of the body to determine the cause of death. Otherwise known as an autopsy.
Pre inquest review (PIR)
A meeting held with the coroner and Interested Persons to plan for the Inquest. PIRs typically address legal and procedure issues before the full inquest, including: disclosure of information; which witnesses will attend in person; and confirming the Interested Persons.
Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report
If the coroner believes that the inquest has brought to light evidence that shows other people may be at risk of dying if certain changes aren’t made, then they have a duty to write to whoever they have identified as the appropriate authority, person or organisation, who has the power to make a change and recommend that they take action to prevent future deaths. This is also sometimes known as a Regulation 28 Report.
Read (Rule 23)
The coroner may decide that a witness’s written statement can be read aloud in court and that the witness does not have to attend and answer questions. This usually happens when the evidence is not controversial or not challenged by any of the parties. Rule 23 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 is the rule that allows this to happen.
The statements that your barrister will make on your behalf. i.e. your interpretation of the evidence presented.
There are a range of these available to the coroner, including but not limited to: suicide, industrial disease, misadventure and natural causes.
See Conclusion definition above.